Campaign Corruption

I am convinced that our republican form of government, that is self-government, representative government, is being destroyed by the oligarchists who finance both political parties. They do so in violence to the integrity of the political process by using interstate and interdistrict campaign contributions to influence the election where nonvoters, most frequently in conjunction with the incumbents, buy and sell political office to the lobbyists and the special interests.

All of this is contrary to the provision expressed in Article 4 of the United States Constitution guaranteeing a republican form of government. The American dream expressed in the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln is "... government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Obviously, the dream cannot survive the private financing of public elections wherein the wealthy, the wellborn and the special interests are able to use campaign funds as outright bribes where the sale and purchase of influence is the vehicle that drives our form of government.

The United States Supreme Court case of Buckley vs Valeo has sanctioned the right of the super-rich to use the First Amendment as a method to finance their election to public office. This has produced a "political class" led by men and women who have the economic power to buy public office.

However, the Supreme Court in the Buckley case affirmed the right of Congress to limit individual campaign contributions to $1,000.00, notwithstanding the First Amendment. As a consequence there is a discrepancy between the right to make campaign contributions to yourself as opposed to others. This creates an abominable circumstance as campaign contributions are in reality a modern-day poll tax and must be outlawed for the same reason the poll tax was outlawed.

It is my mission, expressed in the lawsuit Hooker vs. Sundquist, which is now before the Supreme Court of Tennessee, to get that case to the United States Supreme Court and have the high court revisit the Buckley decision. The basis is that unlimited self-contributions, as well as contributions from others which are beyond the capacity of most people to contribute, violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the guarantee in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution for a republican form of government.

The decision in Baker vs. Carr, the one-man-one vote case, held that there can be no discrimination of political power based on geography. Previously, rural voters had been permitted more representation than the urban voters. Consequently, the Hooker vs Sundquist lawsuit challenges the discrimination that results from the utilization of campaign contributions that provide an avenue for the "haves" to take advantage of the "have nots" at the ballot box.

It is the thesis of these lawsuits and of my campaign for governor that every citizen is entitled to stand equal at the ballot box. Government is for the common benefit, therefore, one elector must not be advantaged over another.

Our concept of representative self-government, republican in form, requires "justice at the ballot box" because without justice at the ballot box there can be no justice in the legislative halls, the executive branch, or in the courts themselves.

Those who are interested in these principles should know about these lawsuits and this effort to restore the American dream by acknowledging the sovereignty of the voter over the public official so that we the people are able to determine our destiny.

The fact in Tennessee is that Don Sundquist, the Republican nominee to succeed himself, has solicited approximately $500,000 in out-of-state, non-voter campaign contributions and insists that the Tennessee legislature has the right to exempt campaign contributions from the bribery statute. These matters are at the heart of the November election contest for governor between Hooker and Sundquist. It remains to be seen whether or not Gov. Sundquist will accept the invitation to debate this matter.